If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

They avoid the conclusion that homosexuality is a choice because it isn't true. They also avoid it because even entertaining the notion gives the anti gay crowd far too much ammunition.

They also find it insulting when Straight people tell them that all of the hardships and difficulties that come with being gay could have easily been avoided by simply getting a shrink. Though that one may be more of a personal annoyance for me.

Keep in mind that that part of that post spoke of change that is not chosen. I think the data--which is far too widespread to dismiss as anecdotal--show that some decades-long straights eventually found themselves gay and some decades-long gays eventually found themselves straight.

And wait--are you saying scientists avoid asking certain questions because of social pressure? Because that sounds an awful lot like bias. In fact, it sounds like the kind of thing for which Carl Sagan would warn people to tune up their baloney detectors.

The fact that you contemplated saying inflammatory things in response to my non-inflammatory things is sad. It is far too frequent that people in these debates take personal offense at what is being presented.

Also, I note that the article you linked to failed to cite the numbers on the handedness and birth order studies, but I have heard these are actually rather low. Additionally, so far as I am aware, handedness is still not a completely understood phenomena either, meaning handedness studies don't yet prove something to be inborn. (If you have some data that handedness is definitely inborn and genetic in particular, it might be useful to post it.)

Regarding homosexual animals, I suggest several things. First, note the OP, which says, quite prominently, "The penguins can't help you." Second, I'd like you to consider this post, where I go through reasons why one study on rats provides much less evidence for pro-gay people than many of them think. Third, I'd like you to point out information about animals that were undoubtedly born gay. I've heard about plenty of cases where all we know about the animal is "it's gay right now." In fact, I've even heard of some who turned gay!

Originally Posted by EmeraldGoblin

Science can be biased... but that is not the puporse of science.
Real science is unbiased, and all the links that i have presented have no bias because it only uncovers the truth with empirical data, not to fit a mold, but data that is relevant, and shows a significant amount to deduce that conversion therapy is bad.

Note that the post you quoted of mine didn't say anything about conversion therapy, or about the links you posted. I was interested in calling out your erroneous statement which didn't allow for scientists to be biased. Your admission now that "Science can be biased" is precisely my point!

Nowhere did that article limit environmental factors to inborn factors, it just said environmental factors may include those.

"....environmental factors (that is, not societal attitudes, family or parenting which are shared by twins)"

which is why it says random environmental factors, which may include womb conditions.... not enviromental factors that are purely psychological, but biological environmental factors... stop twisting the working

Keep in mind that that part of that post spoke of change that is not chosen. I think the data--which is far too widespread to dismiss as anecdotal--show that some decades-long straights eventually found themselves gay and some decades-long gays eventually found themselves straight.

And wait--are you saying scientists avoid asking certain questions because of social pressure? Because that sounds an awful lot like bias. In fact, it sounds like the kind of thing for which Carl Sagan would warn people to tune up their baloney detectors.

The Notion that homosexuality was a choice was dismissed a long time ago by the scientific community. It has nothing to do with societal pressure. Also, people don't generally change their sexuality later on in life, it is far more fluent in a persons younger years. If you're 18 and gay you're most likely going to stay that way unless there is a environmental factor, such as physical abuse, that is affecting your orientation.

The fact that you contemplated saying inflammatory things in response to my non-inflammatory things is sad. It is far too frequent that people in these debates take personal offense at what is being presented.

Please don't take offense when I say this, but the manner in which you post sometimes comes off as antagonistic without you even trying to be.

The fact that you contemplated saying inflammatory things in response to my non-inflammatory things is sad. It is far too frequent that people in these debates take personal offense at what is being presented.

Also, I note that the article you linked to failed to cite the numbers on the handedness and birth order studies, but I have heard these are actually rather low. Additionally, so far as I am aware, handedness is still not a completely understood phenomena either, meaning handedness studies don't yet prove something to be inborn. (If you have some data that handedness is definitely inborn and genetic in particular, it might be useful to post it.)

Regarding homosexual animals, I suggest several things. First, note the OP, which says, quite prominently, "The penguins can't help you." Second, I'd like you to consider this post, where I go through reasons why one study on rats provides much less evidence for pro-gay people than many of them think. Third, I'd like you to point out information about animals that were undoubtedly born gay. I've heard about plenty of cases where all we know about the animal is "it's gay right now." In fact, I've even heard of some who turned gay!

The reason I was tempted toward inflammatory statements is that behind your insistence that homosexuality is a choice is probably another assertion, that it's a sin, and an abomination, and gays are going to hell. I would be pleasantly surprised if that was not your opinion, but I've encountered others making similar arguments to you that I managed to draw out into admitting that's what they actually believe. Because on a deep fundamental level, choice or not, I don't see what's wrong with two consenting adults making love and having a civil marriage. Putting aside all the arguments about choice, just tell me what you believe about homosexuality.

"....environmental factors (that is, not societal attitudes, family or parenting which are shared by twins)"

which is why it says random environmental factors, which may include womb conditions.... not enviromental factors that are purely psychological, but biological environmental factors... stop twisting the working

No, I didn't twist anything. Did you miss the part where it discussed sexuality in women and said that "shared factors, or the family environment, explained 16 per cent"? Thus they clearly weren't restricting the use of the phrase "environmental factors" to mean only pre-birth stuff. And even though they argue that upbringing hardly affects male sexuality, their statement also indicates that they conclude upbringing definitely affects the sexuality of women.

Originally Posted by Eterna

The Notion that homosexuality was a choice was dismissed a long time ago by the scientific community. It has nothing to do with societal pressure. Also, people don't generally change their sexuality later on in life, it is far more fluent in a persons younger years. If you're 18 and gay you're most likely going to stay that way unless there is a environmental factor, such as physical abuse, that is affecting your orientation.

This is the second time you've attacked the choice straw man even though I've said I wasn't even talking about that (even though, as we've discussed, it may happen in a very few cases).

Additionally, I completely recognize that many if not most people stay one way. However, "most people" isn't the same as "all people."

Originally Posted by Eterna

Please don't take offense when I say this, but the manner in which you post sometimes comes off as antagonistic without you even trying to be.

I get very mixed reviews. Please don't take offense when I say this, but most of the people who think I come off as antagonistic are gay. The most massive offense-taking or even insulting responses have come when I simply debated the same way I debate everyone else.

Originally Posted by Evil Quagsire

The reason I was tempted toward inflammatory statements is that behind your insistence that homosexuality is a choice is probably another assertion, that it's a sin, and an abomination, and gays are going to hell. I would be pleasantly surprised if that was not your opinion, but I've encountered others making similar arguments to you that I managed to draw out into admitting that's what they actually believe. Because on a deep fundamental level, choice or not, I don't see what's wrong with two consenting adults making love and having a civil marriage. Putting aside all the arguments about choice, just tell me what you believe about homosexuality.

First of all, I didn't insist that homosexuality was a choice--I even said basically, "forget choice, some seem dead-set against any possibility of change even if the person didn't choose the change."

Second, none of that justifies inflammatory statements. I mean, a lot of people believe I'm going to hell! If they think this, how does it affect me? It doesn't make me go to hell, and I know better than to let people's words get under my skin and cause me to send hateful statements back their way. Especially if you believe in tolerance, would it be good to send fire even in response to fire?

Furthermore, none of those other things you bring up is relevant to your statement about homosexual animals or our subsequent debate about the value of such animals as evidence. There is no reason for me to answer those questions (except that you want to find hidden motives behind my words), especially since you dodged my point in order to ask them.

Change =/= a choice. I fully agree sexuality is subject to change throughout a person's life, and it kind of saddens me that even some of the pro-gay crowd disagrees (and I think it is because of the aforementioned fear of change), but I am extremely doubtful whether people have much control over it, either internally or via external treatments. That is the real kicker about the idea of changing your sexuality: yes, it may change, but you cannot do much about it one way or the other, and repressing it is arguably worse than accepting it and learning to cope.

I still want to know why we should be arguing over ex-gay therapy when it wouldn't be such a damn problem if people didn't hold the idea of liking anything but the opposite sex as such a horrible, awful thing. Would it really be necessary at all if we as a society didn't put so much emphasis on what sexuality and sex itself should and shouldn't be, and try to push that as The Right and Only Way?

...Maybe I'm just looking at this from too sociological of a perspective, though.

I have a theory that the Pokémon world and the Mother world are one in the same. I won't go into spoilers for Mother 3, but think of Black and White's story of the dragon and the twins. Also, chimeras are kind of like Pokémon.

That was pretty interesting. Didn't know that a child is more likely to be gay if the mother had several other male children before him. Now that I think about it, it only makes sense, from a byological point of view.

Now don't take what I'm about to say in the wrong way. But, although in the past I simply dismissed an individual's possibility to change from gay to straight as a big fat lie put up by christian homophobes, I'm now aware that there's a possibility that there might be some truth in it. Although I still see it hard for one to completely change his sectual orientation just like that, as the "change" I mentioned mostly applies to minor aspects of sexuality (stuff like wheather or not you're into a certain fetish, whether you're bi-curious or not etc). So, most of it is still puffed up and abused of as an institution.

Also, if a gay does actually come to a point in his/her life where his/her sexuality becomes "straight", it's only a matter of his/her concern. The possibility of a possibility of a possible change (lol) shouldn't in any way give society the right to enforce anyone into a change they don't want to undertake.
The vid's example of lefties is very fitting here. There once was a time when left-handed people were forced to learn to write with their right hand. They eventually did, but (1)in iself, it's not really worth the effort, as you can write even with the other hand and (2)I'm sure that turning from gay to straight isn't even remotely as simple as learning to use your other hand to write.

Spoiler:- Credits:

Sworn Metalhead for the signature banner and Sweep Freak for the avatar

I feel that they have every right to express it. I actually think that Christians need to stop bugging the media. Seriously, "Like if you are a Christian and proud of it", "Christian 4 Life" "Christian power!!" We get it, you are Christian, SO IS 75 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION.

I feel that they have every right to express it. I actually think that Christians need to stop bugging the media. Seriously, "Like if you are a Christian and proud of it", "Christian 4 Life" "Christian power!!" We get it, you are Christian, SO IS 75 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION.

Yeah but a ton of people simply claim to belong to a religion but don't actually observe and practice it. With Christianity for example, there are many who claim to belong to this religion, but they do not actually observe or practice it. This is true of all the world religions. There are people who are Buddhist, Muslim, etc. who only claim to be. Their daily actions, behavior, and way of thinking proves otherwise. This is why the numbers are grossly inaccurate.

Interesting links Johto_girl. The second one reminds me of this, so whether someone agrees or not(opinion), we've observed and have record of, a wide spectrum of human sexuality(fact). I wanna ask this, so there are people who are attracted to neither male nor female, they're literally not attracted sexually in any way to any gender. So is this natural, is this immoral or sinful too? Those who consider homosexuality a moral failing, you should persecute these people who aren't attracted to either gender as well, right?

This study was based on witness testimony and is wholly unscientific and unacceptable.The Kinsey Test relies on witness testimony and is wholly unscientific and unacceptable.

I just thought I'd start applying the same criticisms applied to the exgay study to other studies. Enjoy!

Just so you know that as weird as the results might be they are actually scientific because they're consistent. The same tests have been carried out time and time again with the results being the same. The hand theory is important because it goes against the idea that homosexuality could be because of environment (how the child is raised) or that it's in the genes. This is because while a child is shaped by those around them, no-one has any control over their hand shape. The hand theory also suggests that being gay may not entirely be related to genes because of the fact that studies show that boys who have several older brothers have a higher chance of being gay -these are the ones that tend to display the pattern as shown in the pictures.

The fact that it's witness based is irrelevant because as it says in the article that each participant was asked questions about their sexuality and in the case of men how many brothers they have. These type of tests have to be done on a witness based research because although science is making huge strides in this area, theres still not enough information known about homosexuality. However scientists believe that it comes down to three things: genes, environment and birth order.

Dude man mattej, people give you dookie about this because ultimately it comes down to this, when something contradicts or goes against the Bible, they go with what the Bible says rather than the results they've observed. What would you do personally in a hypothetical situation in which you find out something by using science that is to the contrary of what the Bible says. What would you go with? And if you say that you'd go with what you observed and recorded(the science) over what the Bible says on the hypothetical situation then good, glad to hear that. But the fact remains that millions of other Christians would not make that choice.

Actually, its proven that homosexuality (and heterosexuality) is like hair color. You are born with it. (And don't talk about hair dye- that is different!) There have been studies and its proven to be commonly connected to certain physical attributes. These may sound stereotypical, but I am not trying to offend anyone. Apparently a man is more likely to be gay if the whorl of his hair goes counterclockwise, has a certain finger length ratio which I don't remember, takes shorter strides, etc. These are physical attributes. Also gay Alzheimer's patients who completely lose their memory still remember that they are gay. So that has been established.

It's really time for gay marriage to be legal everywhere. Yet, still, prejudice, discrimination, and even murder/hate crimes still exist. And don't even get me started on certain countries, such as Uganda, where the punishment for being gay is the death penalty.

Also gay Alzheimer's patients who completely lose their memory still remember that they are gay. So that has been established.

I'm pretty sure I've heard of Alzheimer's patients forgetting other things that would seem to be inherent characteristics. And what precisely would it mean if they didn't forget that they are gay? And you should provide a source. How is it possible to track what memories remain if a person loses his or her memory completely?

i wont treat someone differently because they are gay...but that doesnt mean that i agree with it.
i have read the bible and agree with the part in the first post.
i can also think of several other reasons.
also i agree with the part that stats that it is a choice. (i have personal experience with that)

#AlphaSapphire

I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
If you have a question about my religion, or wish to discuss my religion, the Bible, or anything related to this topic, feel free to PM or VM me, take a look at the information in my profile or visit our official website.

I'm pretty sure I've heard of Alzheimer's patients forgetting other things that would seem to be inherent characteristics. And what precisely would it mean if they didn't forget that they are gay? And you should provide a source. How is it possible to track what memories remain if a person loses his or her memory completely?

You're right, we need a source. But I'm not quite sure I follow your logic here. Even if I lost all the memories of my past relationships and sexual experiences that I've had with females I doubt highly that I would forget something as rudimentary as my sexual orientation. I don't know if memory is even of correlation in that case, it wouldn't be based off memory really. I could ask a 30 year old virgin are you gay or straight and I doubt he'd be unsure of his answer simply because he doesn't have any memories of having sex.

Ready for more sentence by sentence rebuttals and half page long reponses? Because I sure as hell am.

Originally Posted by ansem the wise

also i agree with the part that stats that it is a choice. (i have personal experience with that)

You know, Ive come to the realization of what people actually mean by "choice" here.

Of course, its completely and totally a choice if you do or dont want have sex with that one sexy looking stud a few meters away, no amount of arguing will change that.

What I think is completely and totally bull is that people actually think the orientation, whether or not I or any one else is actually swooned by the guys combination of smooth talking and masculine physique is a choice. Really now, no one is actualy arguing that your orientation is a choice are they?

Lets put it this way, do you have a fetish? Do you command your metapod to USE HARDEN every time you see a fetish of your liking, or does the little guy pitch his tent regardless of your desires or wishes upon sight of your fetish?